> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron
> Mulder
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> On Mon,
I ran several tests and it looks like the
> > Container triggers the ejbStore() when it encounters the
> > findByXXX call ...
> >
> > Is this a good long-term solution? It seems a little kludgy ...
> >
> > If this is the final solution, would you like for me t
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> > Esposito
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serio
e. I'll
repost this question later if I get no responses.
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Esposito
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore
t; Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 12:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> >
> > Doesn't work??!! Are you sure you have the latest JBoss from
> > source? I put
> > this "ejbStore
nal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Esposito
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 12:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> >
> > Doesn't wor
>
> Doesn't work??!! Are you sure you have the latest JBoss from
> source? I put
> this "ejbStore on ejbFind" in last week . Anyways, don't forget, ejbStore
> will ONLY be called on entities of the same type of the finder
> and that are
> within the same transaction.
Sorry 'bout that ... I hadn
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Esposito
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
> Burke
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 10:23 AM
>
> 1. Change JBoss to expose a flush method.
>
> A.setAddress(newAddress)
> ((ImaginaryJBossEntityProxy)A).flush(); // Causes an ejbStore()/Update.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 8:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> Hi,
&
Hi,
A couple of comments
1. I think the worst problems can be eliminated by simply extending Bill's
"store before load" to include "store before remove" and possibly "store
before create" although I don't have an example of why the last one would
help.
2. There are probably some examples of how
Hi all,
trying to sort that out.
David Esposito showed us a perfectly OK sequence of modifications
to some Entity beans within one TX. He reported problems with JBoss
accessing the DB while persisting, because of changed order of
modifications, creates/deletes seem to be done before updates,
reg
..
-Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay
> Walters
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 3:44 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
>
seems to be a serious problem
Hi,
Well, another possibility would be ketting your db vendor to check fk
constraints only on transaction boundaries, which would imho make the most
sense, however in the real world, Bill Burke just added (to cvs/2.3-2.4 I
think) some code that forces the container to
OSS and we have made very positive comments to our fellow
Weblogicians about the JBOSS ...
-Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
> (Dan Christopherson)
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi,
Well, another possibility would be ketting your db vendor to check fk
constraints only on transaction boundaries, which would imho make the most
sense, however in the real world, Bill Burke just added (to cvs/2.3-2.4 I
think) some code that forces the container to store all modifications
befo
I think in this example, though, you're mixing paradigms too much. If
you want to write SQL in session beans, go ahead. If you want to use
entity beans as an object layer over the database, do that. You will
have to be very carefull in mixing them this way.
EJBs are intended to be an Java/OO t
Message-
From: David Esposito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
That's what I want ... I don't want the data to be committed, I just need it
to be visible by other
David Esposito wrote:
>
> I am surprised that I am the only one that has raised this particular
> example. It seems like it's something that people would do every day.
>
Actually it's far more common for people to complain about behavior
closer to what you want - "Why is ejbStore being calle
essage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
> (Dan Christopherson)
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> He's not removing t
client to reference the bean will get what? Object does not exist when
they try to execute a method on the bean?
Cheers
-Original Message-
From: danch (Dan Christopherson) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 1:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbSt
> Cheers
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott M Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> Why is this a serious problem? The
The behavior you'd get by setting that flag to false in weblogic would
also allow him to not break referential integrity in the case of his
transaction.
Scott M Stark wrote:
> Why is this a serious problem? The weblogic docs for the flag you mention
> indicate the commit is still not done unti
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
> M Stark
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
>
>
> Why is this a serious problem? The weblogic docs for the flag you mention
> indicate t
ED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] ejbStore() delay seems to be a serious problem
Why is this a serious problem? The weblogic docs for the flag you mention
indicate the commit is still not done until the end of the transaction and
that you would only notice this if your db allows for un
Why is this a serious problem? The weblogic docs for the flag you mention
indicate the commit is still not done until the end of the transaction and
that you would only notice this if your db allows for uncommitted reads.
From, http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs61///ejb/EJB_environment.html#1048164
U
26 matches
Mail list logo
